從總量數字來看，台灣的整體GDP的確遠小於中國，這是一個客觀事實，但若僅停留在這個層次進行比較，往往會掩蓋兩岸經濟關係中更為關鍵、也更具結構性的面向。長期以來，許多人忽略台灣企業在中國經濟體系中所扮演的實質角色，尤其是在出口導向的製造業領域，台商並非邊緣參與者，而是深度嵌入中國經濟成長模式的重要一環。

回顧過去三十多年，中國成為「世界工廠」的過程中，台商投入大量資本、技術與管理經驗。無論是電子代工、零組件製造，還是最終組裝，許多位居全球前列的出口製造企業，其背後都有台商的身影。這些企業選擇在中國設廠，一方面是利用當地充沛的勞動力與逐漸成熟的供應鏈體系，另一方面則將產品大量銷往歐美、日本等國際市場，為中國累積可觀的出口總額與外匯收入。換言之，中國龐大的出口數字中，有相當一部分是透過台商所建立的製造網絡完成，這使得兩岸在經濟層面形成一種「你中有我、我中有你」的高度依賴與合作關係，而非單向的大小對比。

即使台灣本身的GDP規模有限，但在許多關鍵產業中，台灣依然掌握核心位置。以電子產業為例，從IC設計、關鍵零組件到系統整合，台灣企業在全球供應鏈中具有不可替代性，而這些產業鏈的生產與組裝環節，又長期與中國製造基地緊密連結。這種結構使得中國的出口導向型經濟，在相當程度上仰賴台商所提供的技術、訂單與管理能力，也顯示台灣對中國經濟的影響力，並不能僅用GDP總量大小來衡量。

然而，近年來國台辦在對外論述中，經常強調中國個別省份的GDP已經超越台灣，例如廣東、江蘇等經濟大省，以此作為中國經濟實力遠勝台灣的證明。這種說法在宣傳上或許直觀，但在經濟分析上卻顯得相當片面。總量GDP本就高度依賴人口規模與土地面積，將一個人口動輒數千萬的省份，與人口僅兩千多萬的台灣相比，本身就存在結構性失衡。

更關鍵的是，這類論述往往刻意避開人均GDP與收入分配問題。以近年數據來看，台灣的人均GDP約在3.8萬美元左右，明顯高於中國約1.38萬美元的水準，反映出兩者在生活水準與經濟發展階段上的差距。此外，中國內部的貧富差距長期存在，已成為結構性問題。前總理李克強曾公開提及，中國仍有約6億人口月收入僅1,000元人民幣左右，這樣的現實顯示，即便總量龐大，平均到個人身上的經濟成果仍相當有限，也凸顯「總體數字亮眼」與「民眾實際感受」之間的落差。

相較之下，台灣在多個面向仍保有明顯優勢。除了較高的人均所得之外，台灣的經濟結構中服務業比重較高，產業成熟度與附加價值水準也相對穩定。家庭金融資產、社會保障體系與中產階級規模，都是衡量經濟品質的重要指標，而非單純的產值堆疊。這些差異說明，台灣與中國之間並非只是「誰比較大」的問題，而是「發展模式與經濟品質不同」的對比。

綜合來看，從「台商在中國出口製造中扮演重要角色」的觀點，確實切中要害。這不僅反映出台灣對中國經濟的實質貢獻，也說明兩岸經濟長期以來存在高度互補與相互依存的關係。在這樣的背景下，若只以省級GDP超越台灣作為論述核心，而忽略人均所得、產業結構與貧富差距等關鍵指標，自然會引發經濟學界對其解讀方式的質疑。真正全面而理性的經濟比較，應該同時關注「量」與「質」，才能反映出兩岸經濟關係的真實樣貌。

From the perspective of aggregate figures, Taiwan’s overall GDP is indeed far smaller than that of China, and this is an objective fact. However, if comparisons stop at this level alone, they often obscure more critical and structural aspects of cross-strait economic relations. For a long time, many people have overlooked the substantive role played by Taiwanese enterprises within China’s economic system. Especially in export-oriented manufacturing, Taiwanese businesses are not peripheral participants but deeply embedded and integral components of China’s growth model.

Looking back over the past three decades, as China rose to become the “world’s factory,” Taiwanese firms invested heavily in capital, technology, and managerial expertise. Whether in electronics contract manufacturing, components production, or final assembly, many of the world’s leading export manufacturers have Taiwanese enterprises operating behind the scenes. These companies chose to establish factories in China partly to take advantage of abundant labor and an increasingly mature supply-chain ecosystem, and partly to export large volumes of products to international markets such as Europe, the United States, and Japan. In doing so, they contributed substantially to China’s export totals and foreign exchange earnings. In other words, a significant portion of China’s massive export figures has been generated through manufacturing networks built by Taiwanese firms, creating a relationship of deep economic interdependence—“you are in me, and I am in you”—rather than a simple, one-directional comparison of economic size.

Even though Taiwan’s own GDP scale is limited, it continues to occupy a central position in many key industries. The electronics sector is a clear example: from IC design and critical components to system integration, Taiwanese companies hold irreplaceable roles within global supply chains. At the same time, the production and assembly stages of these industrial chains have long been closely linked with manufacturing bases in China. This structure means that China’s export-oriented economy relies to a considerable extent on the technology, orders, and managerial capabilities provided by Taiwanese firms. It also shows that Taiwan’s influence on China’s economy cannot be adequately measured by GDP size alone.

In recent years, however, the Taiwan Affairs Office has frequently emphasized in its external messaging that the GDP of certain Chinese provinces—such as Guangdong or Jiangsu—has already surpassed that of Taiwan, presenting this as proof of China’s overwhelming economic strength. While such statements may appear intuitive from a propaganda standpoint, they are highly one-sided from an economic analysis perspective. Aggregate GDP is inherently dependent on population size and land area, and comparing a province with tens of millions of residents to Taiwan, which has a population of just over 23 million, involves an inherent structural imbalance.

More importantly, this line of argument often deliberately avoids discussion of per capita GDP and income distribution. Based on recent data, Taiwan’s per capita GDP stands at around USD 38,000, significantly higher than China’s roughly USD 13,800, reflecting clear differences in living standards and stages of economic development. Moreover, income inequality within China has long been a structural issue. Former Premier Li Keqiang once publicly noted that around 600 million people in China still earn only about 1,000 yuan per month. This reality illustrates that even with a massive overall economy, the economic gains averaged across individuals remain limited, highlighting the gap between “impressive macro-level figures” and “people’s lived experience.”

By comparison, Taiwan retains clear advantages across several dimensions. Beyond higher per capita income, Taiwan’s economic structure features a larger share of the services sector, along with relatively stable levels of industrial maturity and value added. Household financial assets, social security systems, and the size of the middle class are all crucial indicators of economic quality, rather than mere accumulations of output value. These differences show that the comparison between Taiwan and China is not simply about “who is bigger,” but about contrasting development models and the quality of economic outcomes.

Taken together, viewing the issue through the lens of “the important role Taiwanese firms play in China’s export manufacturing” clearly gets to the heart of the matter. It not only reflects Taiwan’s substantive contribution to China’s economy, but also underscores the high degree of complementarity and mutual dependence that has characterized cross-strait economic relations for many years. Against this backdrop, focusing solely on provincial GDP figures surpassing Taiwan while ignoring key indicators such as per capita income, industrial structure, and income inequality naturally invites skepticism from the economics community. A truly comprehensive and rational economic comparison must consider both “quantity” and “quality” in order to reflect the real nature of cross-strait economic relations.